Family Law Hub

Businesses

Latest updates

  • Claims for financial remedies after divorce. Everything that the parties now possessed had been built up during the course of the marriage, including a successful mobile telephone business. The litigation had been highly destructive and the husband had been largely responsible for that situation. The only way that Cohen J could be confident that the wife and children would be properly provided for was for the beneficial interest in the business to be transferred to the wife. Properties in London and Miami were divided between them. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
  • The husband had been ordered to pay the former wife a lump sum of £20m in full and final settlement of her claims. Eleven years later, not a penny had been paid. A without notice order had been made appointing receivers of shares in a Spanish company, of which the husband had been found to be the beneficial owner. This receivership order was set aside following an application by other parties, and the wife now appealed against the set-aside order. Baker LJ decided that the judge had been wrong to set it aside on the mere assertion by the other parties that they were the owners of relevant shares. A third party could not expect to receive the protection of the court if it wasn't prepared for the rights it claimed to be scrutinised. Arguments on limitation, jurisdiction and estoppel also failed. Moylan LJ and Longmore LJ agreed, and the receivership order was restored, the latter adding that the application to set aside the receivership order had been misconceived from the start. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
  • After some delay, the husband sought a stay of a periodical payments order, arguing that the judge had fallen into error in treating his future earning capacity as a matrimonial asset which could be shared. In circumstances where there was no final version of the judgment, nor a sealed order, Francis J held that it was unfair to hold the relevant time limits against the husband. He agreed that the judge had been plainly wrong, and reduced the annual payments from £150,000 to £68,000. This hearing had been listed for only a day, causing further delay, and he stressed that there is a general duty on counsel and solicitors to inform the court if a time estimate is plainly incorrect. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
  • A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • The applicant, a convicted sex offender, applied for an order that a letter of request be issued to the American authorities for the respondent to be examined and required to produce documents relating to supposed assets. The claim being highly speculative, and given the applicant's conduct, Mostyn J concluded that it would be disproportionate and unlawful to grant the application. Judgment, 20/05/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item